lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 22:23:28 -0500 From: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com> To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, David Barksdale <dbarksdale@...ogix.com>, Antonio Ospite <ao2@....it>, "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] HID: cp2112: remove various hid_out_raw_report calls On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:47 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com> wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Benjamin Tissoires > <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote: >> hid_out_raw_report is going to be obsoleted as it is not part of the >> unified HID low level transport documentation >> (Documentation/hid/hid-transport.txt) >> >> hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf), HID_FEATURE_REPORT); >> is strictly equivalent to: >> hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf), >> HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT); > > This time you might be right that feature-reports always put the > report-id into the first byte, but I'd still prefer if we avoid using > this. Besides, the code is much nicer imho if we pass the ID directly, > see below.. Yes you are completely right. Will send a v3 ASAP. Cheers, Benjamin > >> >> So use the new api. >> >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> >> --- >> >> no changes since v1 >> >> drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c b/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c >> index 1025982..860db694 100644 >> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c >> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c >> @@ -185,8 +185,8 @@ static int cp2112_gpio_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) >> buf[1] &= ~(1 << offset); >> buf[2] = gpio_push_pull; >> >> - ret = hdev->hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf), >> - HID_FEATURE_REPORT); >> + ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf), >> + HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT); > > buf[0] => CP2112_GPIO_CONFIG > >> if (ret < 0) { >> hid_err(hdev, "error setting GPIO config: %d\n", ret); >> return ret; >> @@ -207,8 +207,8 @@ static void cp2112_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value) >> buf[1] = value ? 0xff : 0; >> buf[2] = 1 << offset; >> >> - ret = hdev->hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf), >> - HID_FEATURE_REPORT); >> + ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf), >> + HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT); > > Here buf[0] seems fine as it is set explicitly just 3 lines above to > CP2112_GPIO_SET. > >> if (ret < 0) >> hid_err(hdev, "error setting GPIO values: %d\n", ret); >> } >> @@ -253,8 +253,8 @@ static int cp2112_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, >> buf[1] |= 1 << offset; >> buf[2] = gpio_push_pull; >> >> - ret = hdev->hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf), >> - HID_FEATURE_REPORT); >> + ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf), >> + HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT); > > Here an explicit CP2112_GPIO_CONFIG seems nicer, imho. > > Thanks > David > >> if (ret < 0) { >> hid_err(hdev, "error setting GPIO config: %d\n", ret); >> return ret; >> -- >> 1.8.5.3 >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists